By: Staff Writer
May 16, Colombo (LNW): In a move that has ignited intense debate across Sri Lanka, the government signed a landmark defence cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with India during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent official visit to Colombo.
This pact marks the most comprehensive military agreement Sri Lanka has entered into since its 1947 defence arrangement with Britain, raising questions about the island nation’s autonomy and geopolitical alignment.
The nine-page MoU, signed by Sri Lankan Defence Secretary Sampath Thuyacontha and Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha, outlines wide-ranging collaboration across military training, personnel exchanges, technological cooperation, and joint defence ventures.
However, both governments have withheld full disclosure of the agreement’s text, citing confidentiality, further fueling domestic anxieties.
A Historic Turnaround
This agreement has political observers drawing historical parallels. In 1947, fearing Indian annexation post-independence, the then-United National Party (UNP) government signed a defence pact with Britain.
Now, almost 80 years later, Sri Lanka has effectively placed itself under India’s strategic shadow — not through colonial pressure, but by its own accord, led by a government that once fiercely opposed such alignment.
Ironically, the current President Anura Kumara Dissanayake — once a vocal critic of Indian military involvement and leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-aligned National People’s Power (NPP) — has overseen the signing of this MoU.
In 2023, as Opposition Leader, Dissanayake had denounced a similar proposal, warning that “we will be in a situation where we are unable… to take any political or economic decision” independently. Now, his administration has enacted the very policy he once protested.
Terms of the Agreement
While the full document remains classified, excerpts confirm that the MoU spans 12 detailed articles covering:
Personnel and Training: Exchanges of military staff, joint training exercises, observer deployments, and educational programmes.
Technology and Research: Joint ventures in drone technology, shipbuilding, cyber security, and research and development in critical defence fields.
Logistics and Infrastructure: Collaboration in supply chain management, logistics, facility development, and disaster response operations.
Defence Industry: Direct cooperation in defence manufacturing, sales, repairs, and technical support.
Confidentiality & Dispute Resolution: The pact includes strict protection of classified information and explicitly excludes third-party mediation in disputes, mandating bilateral diplomatic resolution.
Duration and Exit Clause: The agreement is valid for five years, renewable for three-year terms. Either party may terminate it with three months’ written notice.
Strategic Repercussions
This defence pact comes amid rising Indo-China tensions in the Indian Ocean and India’s staunch opposition to Chinese naval presence in Sri Lanka.
While officials insist the MoU merely formalizes existing informal arrangements, its timing and breadth suggest a deeper strategic alignment with India and, by extension, the U.S.-led Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad).
Critics argue that the agreement compromises Sri Lanka’s traditionally non-aligned foreign policy. With the U.S. stationing six B-2 bombers in Diego Garcia just days before Modi’s visit — reportedly in preparation for potential action against Iran, a longtime Sri Lankan ally — many see the pact as Sri Lanka drifting into the orbit of a militarized Indo-Pacific bloc.
Veteran diplomat Dayan Jayatilleka questioned the wisdom of choosing sides in regional rivalries. “When there are contradictions between one’s closest neighbor [India] and one’s closest friend [China], why should we tie-up militarily with either one?” he asked, urging a balanced regional approach through platforms like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).
A Bitter Historical Irony
For the JVP, which violently resisted the Indo-Lanka Accord and Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) deployment in the late 1980s — an uprising that cost over 60,000 lives, including its founder Rohana Wijeweera — this agreement represents a profound ideological U-turn.
That era of bloodshed was driven largely by fears of Indian dominance. Today, under the NPP banner, the same political lineage has signed an agreement formalizing India’s defence role in Sri Lanka.
Further aggravating nationalists and critics, India has shown little movement in addressing issues such as illegal poaching by Indian fishermen or the Katchatheevu sovereignty dispute. This raises questions about what strategic or political leverage Sri Lanka has gained in return for this significant concession.
Conclusion
While regional cooperation is essential to confront modern security challenges, many believe Sri Lanka has chosen the wrong path. Instead of pursuing a neutral, multilateral security framework rooted in SAARC or broader Asian cooperation, the government’s decision appears to have tethered national defence to a single regional power.
In the name of cooperation, Sri Lanka may have handed over more than it gained — a move some interpret not as strategic alignment, but as strategic surrender.
Whether this agreement will strengthen the nation’s security or erode its sovereignty remains to be seen, but the ideological and diplomatic implications are already reverberating through Colombo’s political corridors.
